Hey Konrad,
I was looking at the probability monad today and think this definition
of m-bind might be easier to understand.
(defmonad dist-m
[m-result (fn m-result-dist [v]
{v 1})
m-bind (fn m-bind-dist [mv f]
(reduce (partial merge-with +)
(for [[x p] mv
[y q] (f x)]
{y (* q p)})))
])
What do you think?
Also, I was thinking about cond-dist-m. What if dist-m was redefined
to be this
(defmonad dist-m
[m-result (fn m-result-dist [v]
{v 1})
m-bind (fn m-bind-dist [mv f]
(if (empty? mv)
{}
(reduce (partial merge-with +)
(for [[x p] mv
[y q] (f x)]
{y (* q p)}))))
m-zero {}
m-plus (fn m-plus-dist [& mvs]
(if-let [mv (first (drop-while empty? mvs))]
mv
{}))
])
I think that would roll cond-dist-m into dist-m, eliminating the need
for a seperate monad. Don't know if you'd thought of that and
discarded it or not.
Love the work you've done to bring monads to Clojure.
Jim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
